Purdue University

Purdue e-Pubs
International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Conference

School of Mechanical Engineering

2000

Air-Side Thermal Performance of Micro-Channel

Heat Exchangers Under Dehumidifying
Conditions
M. H. Kim
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

C. W. Bullard
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc

Kim, M. H. and Bullard, C. W., "Air-Side Thermal Performance of Micro-Channel Heat Exchangers Under Dehumidifying Conditions"
(2000). International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference. Paper 473.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/473

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for
additional information.
Complete proceedings may be acquired in print and on CD-ROM directly from the Ray W. Herrick Laboratories at https://engineering.purdue.edu/
Herrick/Events/orderlit.html

AIR-SIDE THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF MICRO-CHANNEL HEAT

EXCHANGERS UNDER DEHUMIDIFYING CONDITIONS
Man-Hoe Kim and Clark W. Bullard
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University ofl1linois at Urbana-Champaign
140 MEB, MC-244, 1206 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801

ABSTRACT
An experimental study for air-side thennal-hydraulic performance of brazed aluminum heat exchangers under
dehumidifYing conditions has been performed. For 30 samples of louvered fin heat exchangers with different
geometrical parameters, the heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics for wet surface were evaluated. The test
was conducted for air-side Reynolds number in the range of 80-300 and tube-side water flow rate of 320kg/h. The
dry- and wet-bulb temperatures of the inlet air for heat exchangers were 27C and 19C, respectively and the inlet
water temperature was 6C. The air-side thennal performance data for cooling and dehumidifYing conditions were
analyzed using effectiveness-NTU method for cross-flow heat exchanger with both fluids unmixed. The test results
were reported, compared with those for the dry surface heat exchangers, in terms of sensible j-factor and friction
factor f, as functions of Reynolds number based on louver pitch. The correlations for j and f factors are developed
within rms errors of 16.9 and 13.6 %, respectively.
NOMENCLATURE
Ac

At
Afr
A ow

At
Aw
Cp

Cr
Dh

f
FP
Fd
H

h
how
ho
j

k
ka/
Kc
Ke
I
La

Ll
Lp

m*
Nu
p
Pr

Q
Re

: Minimum free-flow area for air side, m2

: Fin surface area, m2
: Frontal area, m2
:Total air-side surface area, m2
: External tube surface area, m2
: Tube wall area, m2
: Specific heat, JlkgK
: Capacity ratio
: Hydraulic diameter, m
: Fanning friction factor
: Fin pitch, m
: Flow depth, m
: Fin height, m
: Heat transfer coefficient, W/ m2K
: Total heat transfer coefficient, W/ m2K
: Sensible heat transfer coefficient, W/ m2K
: Colburnj-fuctor (Nu/Re W 13)
:Thermal conductivity, W/mK
:Thermal conductivity of tube wall, W/mK
: Abrupt contraction coefficient
: Abrupt expansion coefficient
: Fin length, m
: Louver angle, deg
: Louver length, m
: Louver pitch, m
:Mass flow rate, kg/s
:Refer Eq(ll), m- 1
: Nusselt number (hD!k)
: Pressure drop, Pa
: Prandtl number (via)
: Heat transfer rate, W
: Reynolds number

ReLP
T
Td
T
Um.Aow
Vc

: Reynolds number based on louver pitch

: Temperature, K
: Tube depth, m
: Temperature difference, K
: Overall thermal conductance, WIK
:Maximum air velocity, m/s

Greek letters
: Louver angle, deg
a
:Aspect ratio of tube hole
r
: Fin thickness, m
0;:Tube wall thickness, m
~.
: Effectiveness
e
: Fin efficiency
T/jiv
:Surface effectiveness
T/mv
: Density, kg/m3
p
: Mean average air density, kg/m3
Pm
(Y
:Contraction mtio of the fin array (A/A,;-)
Subscripts
ave
: Average value
1
: Inlet for air side
2
: Outlet for air side
:Waterside
i
:Louver
I
max
: Maximum value
: Minimum value
min
0
:Air side
:Tube
w
: Tube wall or water
: Wet surface
ow

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28,2000

119

INTRODUCTION
Heat exchangers play an important role in the energy efficiency and physical size of the refrigeration and air
conditioning system. Heat exchangers in refrigeration and air conditioning applications are classified as a condenser
and an evaporator and fmned round tube heat exchangers are used extensively. Improving the technology of heat
exchanger performance, particularly air-side performance, has attracted many investigators [1-3]. Since the surface
of the evaporator is subject to condensation of moisture contained in air in cooling mode operation, the design of airside configuration of the heat exchanger requires consideration of heat and mass transfer simultaneously. Research
on the air-side thermal performance of finned tube heat exchangers under wet condition has been performed by
several investigators [4-18].
McQuiston [4-6] studied heat and mass transfer on wet coils and developed correlations for the heat transfer
coefficients and pressure drops. Threlkeld (7], McQuiston [8], and Wu and Bong (9] provided the fm efficiency for
the fully wet surface heat exchangers. Wu and Bong also presented the overall fm efficiency for the partially wet
surface, and reported that only when the fm is partially wet the overall fin efficiency depends significantly on the
relative humidity. Hill and Jeter [10] developed a linear sub-grid model for the air conditioner's cooling and
dehumidifying coil which is an evaporator. They showed the single-pass, cross flow arrangement of the model was
adequate to model counter cross flow heat exchangers. Mirth et al. [11] investigated performance analysis of the
cooling coil based on AR1 Standard [12] and Hu et aL (13] presented the effect of the shape of the condensation
water on the fin surface on thermal performance characteristics. Youn et al. [14] and Domanski and Didion (15]
proposed a model to analyze the performance for various air conditioning evaporators based on tube-by-tube
method, and reported that the sensible heat transfer coefficient for wet surface was larger than that for dry surface.
On the other hand, Wang et al. [16] reported the heat transfer coefficient for wet surface is smaller than that of dry
surface based on a study on the thermal-hydraulic performance of the dehumidifYing coil. Chuah et al. [17]
investigated dehumidifYing performance of chilled water coils with variation of water flow rate. Kim and Jacobi
[18] investigated condensation accumulation effects on air-side heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics for
plain and slit fms and round tube heat exchangers. However, there are few data on the air-side performance for
louvered fin brazed aluminum heat exchangers with dehumidification.
Webb and Jung [19] carried out one study for applying the brazed aluminum heat exchangers to the residential air
conditioner, and showed heat transfer rate of the brazed aluminum heat exchanger was 50% higher than that of
conventional heat exchanger. They reported drainage of condensation water on the heat exchanger surface could be
removed well and it could be used as an evaporator for the residential air conditioning system. Chiou et al. [20]
investigated thermal performance of serpentine type automotive evaporator with flat tube and louvered fins. They
reported that the sensible heat transfer coefficient for wet surface was larger than that for dry surface. However,
there is no published data in the open literature for the correlations of j and f factors of brazed aluminum heat
exchangers under wet condition.
This study presents the heat transfer and pressure drop behaviors of brazed aluminum heat exchangers under wet
surface condition. A series of tests are conducted for the heat exchangers with several different air-side
configurations such as louver angle, flow depth, and fin density. Test results are compared with those for dry
surface, and sensible j-factor and friction factor fare reported as functions of Reynolds number based on louver
pitch, and correlations for the j and ffactors are extracted from the test data.
EXPERIMENTS

Test apparatus
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the test apparatus used in the study. It consists of a suction type wind tunnel,
heat transfer fluid (water) circulation and control units, and data acquisition system and is situated in a constant
temperature and humidity chamber. The air inlet condition of the heat exchanger can be maintained by controlling
the chamber temperature and humidity. The air inlet and outlet dry and wet bulb temperatures for the heat exchanger
are measured associated with sampling units. The air-side pressure drop through the heat exchanger is measured
using a differential pressure transducer and air flow rate is measured using nozzle pressure difference. The heat
transfer fluid circulation and control units can maintain the inlet condition of water-side by regulating water flow
rate and inlet temperature. The uncertainty of heat transfer rate for the test apparatus is within 3% since accuracy of

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28, 2000

120

temperature measurement is 0.1 oc and accuracy of air and water flow rates are 1% and 2%, respectively.
Test heat exchangers
Figures 2 and 3 indicate geometrical configuration and terminology of the test heat exchanger. The heat exchangers
are louvered fin and micro-channel heat exchangers; 30 heat exchanger samples are used for the test. Table 1 shows
simple specification of the test heat exchangers. Fin pitches are 1.2, and 1.4 rom for all cases, plus 1.0 rom for heat
exchangers of louver angle 23 with flow depth of 16 and 24 rom. Louver pitch, louver length and fm height are 1.7
mm, 6.4 rom and 8.15 rom, respectively, and core size ofheat exchangers is 350x 255 rom.
Test condition and method
The heat exchanger is installed in the test section and insulation is placed around heat exchanger to protect it from
heat loss and air leakage. The tests are performed in range of Reynolds number of 80-400 with water flow rate
maintained at 320 kg/h. The inlet air dry and wet bulb temperatures of the heat exchangers are maintained at 27C
and 19C, respectively, and the inlet water temperature is 6C.
Data redaction
When a heat exchanger is used as an evaporator, it is subjected to accumulation of condensation water when its
surface temperature is below the dew point of the inlet air. The analysis of wet heat exchangers requires
consideration ofheat and mass transfer simultaneously. Moist air properties required for analysis of the test data are
calculated based on ASHRAE Handbook [21].
Heat transfer rate required for calculation of air-side heat transfer coefficient can be expressed as
(1)

Where Qo and Q; are heat transfer rates of air and water sides, respectively. The approach used here for data
reduction, employs the total enthalpy method for moist air calculations [21]. It assumes that air behaves as a nonreacting ideal mixture with water vapor as a dilute component, which introduces small errors at these conditions.
{2)
(3)
The first and second terms of the right hand side of the equation (2) indicate sensible and latent heat, respectively.
Effectiveness and NTU method can be used for obtaining air-side heat transfer coefficient. The equation for both
fluids unmixed is

(4)

Effectiveness and NTU for the wet heat exchanger can be expressed

(5)

where Qmax and bw are

(6)

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28,2000

121

The overall heat transfer coefficient for wet surface is given by:

(7)

b~

is,p -i .
l

S,l

-tj

fpj

i -i
b 'p_- s,Po s,Pi

(8)

tPo -fp;

For heat transfer coefficients of water-side, the following equation is developed based on test results [22] obtained
for the same micro-fm tubes used this study.
_

Dhi

Nu; -Nurif +0.0499Re;Pr;L

(9)
2

Nurif =7.541(1-1.969y+5.664y -12.866y +19.349y -16.197y +5.5ly

Where Nureris derived using Schmidt's data [23] of rectangular ducts with different aspect ratios 'Y
The surface effectiveness and fm efficiency for wet surface [7] are

(10)

17 fw =

tanh(m*l)
m*l

(11)

Heat transfer coefficient for wet surface is

how=------

(12)

~/~ + Yw/kw
w

where ho is the sensible heat transfer coefficient for wet surface, and Yw is the thickness of condensation water film,
which is assumed as 0.1 mm [24].
Then we can estimate pressure drop in the control volume using the above information

(13)

(14)

Where Kc and Ke are coeffcients for pressure loss at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figures 4-7 present the test results for aluminum micro-channel heat exchangers with louvered fin. For Fp= 1.4 mm
and La.=23, Figure 4 (a) shows variations of sensible heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop with face air
velocity and flow depth. Heat transfer coefficient increases with increasing frontal air velocity and decreasing flow

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28, 2000

122

depth because of decreasing of boundary layer thickness, while pressure drop increases as expected. Figure 4(b)
shows how sensible heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop vary with louver angle for a face air velocity of 1.0
m/s, compared to those for dry condition [25]. Sensible heat transfer coefficients for wet surface are smaller than
those for dry condition over the entire range of operating conditions, while pressure drops are larger. This behavior
may be explained partly as follows; condensation water on surface acts as thermal resistance for the relatively low
air velocity, typical of residential air conditioning systems [13]. It was observed that heat transfer coefficient
decreases when louver angle is larger than 27, since flow efficiency decreases beyond a certain louver angle.
Pressure drops for wet surface are 3-30% higher than those for dry surface, especially at the lowest louver angle
where condensate bridging between louvers may significantly impair heat transfer and increase the amount of
condensate retained. For smaller fm pitch, the difference between pressure drops for dry and wet surfaces is larger
because difficulty for drainage of condensation water may increase with decreasing fin pitch. Except for the smallest
(15) louver angle, the overall characteristics of thermal performance with respect to louver angle for wet surface are
similar to those for dry surface.
Figure 5 depicts heat transfer rate versus fan power for Fp=1.4 mm with different louver angles and flow depths.
Ideal fan power is calculated using face air velocity (u), face area of heat exchanger (Afr) and pressure drop through
heat exchanger (AP)
(15)
As shown in the figure, heat transfer rate has a maximum value for La.=19-23 in case ofFd=20 mm, while it has a
maximum value for La.=2r in case ofFd=24 mm. This suggests the existence of an optimal louver geometry for a
given system operation condition.
Figure 6 presents Colburn j factor and friction factor f as functions of Reynolds number based on louver pitch,
compared to those for dry surface [25]. The effect of Reynolds number on heat transfer coefficient in the low
Reynolds number region is larger than that in the high Reynolds number region. That means the effect of
condensation water on heat transfer performance decreases as Reynolds number increases. As shown in the Figure
for La.=27, j factor for wet surface is smaller than that for dry surface at low Reynolds number, while it is larger
than that for dry surface at large Reynolds number. This behavior is consistent with the result ofHu et al. [13] who
reported that at low Reynolds number condensation water increased thermal resistance, and so heat transfer
decreased, while at high Reynolds number condensation generated streamwise vorticity, and the increased mixing
improved heat transfer performance. Friction factor for wet surface increases with increasing louver angle as
expected.
Correlations for j and f factors are developed using 129 data points with rms errors of 16.9 % and 13.6%,
respectively:

(16)

Figures 8 and 9 compare these to other correlations for two different types of heat exchangers as shown in Table 2.
For both heat exchangers, j factors for wet surface are consistently smaller than those for dry surface [25-26]. For
heat exchanger type-I, f factors are larger than those for dry surface [25, 27] as expected. However, for heat
exchanger type- II, which has relatively large flow depth, f factor is similar to that of the same heat exchangers
under dry condition [25] and larger than that of Chang et al.'s correlation [27].
CONCLUSION
The heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics for louvered fin micro-channel heat exchangers under
dehumidifYing conditions have been investigated using 30 different heat exchanger samples. At low Reynolds

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28, 2000

123

number, the sensible heat transfer coefficient for wet surface is smaller than that of the same heat exchanger for dry
surface. As Reynolds number increases, however, the sensible heat transfer coefficients for wet surface increase and
is similar to that for dry surface. The pressure drop for wet surface is consistently higher than that for dry surface.
The correlations for j and f factors are developed within rms errors of 16.9 % and 13.6%, respectively. The
correlations proposed here predicted well test data for the heat exchangers having different configurations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful for supporting of this study to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and the 25 member companies of the
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Center (ACRC) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
REFERENCES
I. AM. Jacobi and RK. Shah, 1998, Air-side flow and heat transfer in compact heat exchangers: A discussion of enhancement
mechanisms, Heat Transfer Engineering, Vol. 19, No.4, pp. 1-13.
2. R.L. Webb, 1998, Advances in air-cooled heat exchanger technology, Proceedings of International Conference on Heat
Exchanger for Sustainable Development, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 677-692.
3. N.C. DeJong and AM. Jacobi, 1999, Flow, heat transfer, and pressure drop interactions in louvered-fin arrays, ACRC TR-146.
4. F.C. McQuiston, 1976, "Heat, mass and momentum transfer in a parallel plate dehumidi:f)ring exchanger," ASHRAE Trans.,
Vol. 82, Pt. I, pp. 82 -106.
5. F. C. McQuiston, 1978, "Heat, mass and momentum transfer data for five plate-fin-tube heat transfer surface," ASHRAE Trans,
Vol. 84, Pt. 1, pp. 266-293.
6. F. C. McQuiston, 1978, "Correlation ofheat, mass and momentum transport coefficients for plate-fin-tube heat transfer surfaces
with staggered tubes," ASHRAE Trans, VoL 84, Pt. 1, pp. 294-308.
7. T.H. Kuehn, J. W. Ramsey, and J.L. Threlkeld, 1998, Thermal environmental engineering, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, pp. 289-331.
8. F. C. McQuiston, 1975, "Fin efficiency with combined heat and mass transfer," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 81, Pt. 1, pp. 350-355.
9. G. Wu and T.-Y. Bong, 1994, "Overall efficiency of a straight fin with combined heat and mass transfer," ASHRAE Trans.,
Vol. 100, Pt. I, pp. 367- 374.
10. J.M. Hill and S.M. Jeter, 1991, A linear subgrid cooling and dehumidification coil model with emphasis on mass transfer,"
ASI-IRAE Trans., Vol. 97, Pt. 2, pp. 118-128.
11. D.R. Mirth, S. Ramadhyani, and D.C. Hittle, 1993, "Thermal performance of chilled-water cooling coils opemting at low
water velocities," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 99, pp. 43-53.
12. AR1 Standard 410-91, 1991, Forced circulation air-cooling and air-heating coils, ARI, Arlington, VA U.S.A
13. X.Hu, L. Zhang, and AM. Jacobi, 1994, "Surfuce irregularity effects of droplets and retained condensate on local heat
transfer to finned tubes in cross-flow," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 100, Pt. 1, pp. 375-381.
14. Youn, B., Yoo, K.C., Park, H.Y., and Kim, Y.S., 1996, "Modeling of cross-flow fin-tube evaporator," Proceedings ofKSME
Conference- Thermal Fluid division, pp. 73-81.
15. Domanski, P.A., and Didion, D.A, 1983, "Computer modeling of the vapor compression cycle with constant flow area
expansion device," NBS Building Science Ser. 155, NIST.
16. C. Wang, Y. Hsieh, andY. Lin, 1997, "Performance of plate finned tube heat exchangers under dehumidi:f)ring conditions,"
Trans. ofASME, J. ofHeat Transfer, Vol. 119, pp. 109-117.
17. Kim, G.J. and Jacobi, AM., 2000, "Condensate accumulation effects on the air-side thermal performance of slit-fin surfuces,"
ACRC Report CR-26, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
18. Y.K. Chuah, C.C. Hung, and P.C. Tseng, 1998, "Experiments on the dehumidification performance of a finned tube heat
exchangers," HVAC&R Research, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 167-178.
19. R. L. Webb and S. ll Jung, 1992, Air-side performance of enhanced brazed aluminum heat exchangers, ASHRAE Trans.,
Vol. 98, Pt. 2, pp. 391-401.
20. C.B. Chiou, C.C. Wang, Y.J. Chang, and D.C. Lu, 1994, Experimental study of heat transfer and flow friction characteristics
of automotive evaporators, ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 100, Pt. 2, pp. 575-581.
21. ASHRAE Handbook, 1997, Fundamentals, pp. 6.1-6.17.
22. Kim, N.-H., 1998, Private communications, University oflncheon, Incheon, Korea.
23. Shah, R. K. and London, A L., 1978, Laminar flow forced convection in ducts, Academic Press, pp. 247-252.
24. Myers, R.J., 1967, "The effect of Dehumidification on the air-side heat transfer coefficient for a finned tube coil," M.S.
Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
25. Kim, M.-H. And Bullard, C.W, 2000, "Air-side heat tmnsfer and pressure drop characteristics of micro-channel heat
exchangers," Submitted to Int. Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Advanced Energy Systems Division, Orlando.
26. Chang, Y. and Wang, C., 1997, "A generalized heat transfer correlation for louvered fin geometry," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 533-544.
27. Chang, Y., Wang, C. and Chang, W., 1994, "Heat Transfer and Flow Characteristics of Automotive Brazed Aluminum Heat
Exchangers," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 100, Part 2, pp. 643-652.

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28, 2000

124

Table 1. Specification of the test heat exchangers

Flow depth (Fd, mm)
16
20
24

Tube pitch (Tp, mm)

11.15
10.15
10.15

Louver angle (La, 0 )

23,25,27,29
15 19, 23,27
23,25,27,29

Number oflouvers
8
10
12

Table 2 Heat exchanger samples for comparison of correlations

Heat exchanger
type
I
II

e)
23
30

Lp
(mm)
1.7
1.55

FP
(mni)
1.4
1.6

H
(mm)
8.15

Ll
(mm)
6.4
7.16

10.15
10.24

8.8

Or

Td
(mm)
16
41.76

(~)

(mm)
0.1
0.1

Flow depth, Fd
Lp

Tube
pitch, Tp

lllutnidifia-1
1Healer

Sampling unit Diffusioo baffic

Tcsl bent exchanger

~]

Louver

Warer

Urethane foam (L=42 mm)

Figure 2. Definition of geometric parameters

Constant lcmpcrtaure & humidity chamber

Constant
lemperntme bath

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of test apparatus

Figure 3. Cross section oflouver fin geometry

1000c-~~~~~---~--

------------

1000

La=23 deg, Fp=1.4mm

AP

m
n_
Q

fd="\6mm

[]

Fd=20mm

A.

Fd=24mm

l>

...

[l_
<]

"

Fd'-'24mm

Iii

<:>

I I I

15

17

19

21

23

25

fJ

Fd=20mm

i6 t I 0~
...
...

~.

11'1

Fd=16mm

100

~E

*<:>

!!,_

;Pd

hd

0
D

""*
"'
h

100

<]

--~----~-----,

Fp=1.4 mm, u=1.0 m/s

;;;.

11'1
0

1':1

10

10

...

I'Y
'---1_0

7_5

Fronllll air vefocily {mls)

(a) for La=23 and Fp=l.4 mm

13

27

29

31

Louver angle {deg)

(b) for u=l.O m/s and Fp=1.4 rom

Figure 4. Sensible heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28, 2000

125

1.00,-------------

3JJO

Louver anglo (Fp=1.4mm)

Lowef angle (Fp=L4 mm)
8

15" 19D 23 27

eo

Fd=16nm

<>oo

Fd=20 mm

-,

f<P24nm

o.P"' o

"'

<>

"'

"' <> "'

~D

"'

<-.

"'0

...

1- . ~

oD

"'

o.p

10.10
:;:.

"

"'0

~--

1.0

<>

23dcg

A.

27deg

'9'-- V-

v8

1.00

27deg(dry)

-v~

l
-0.10

... .
Ill

11~01

'z!o'

Figure 6. j and f factors for Fd= 20 mm

0.1
0 Prerent correlation
D Kim and Bullard (2000)
D4 Chang and Wang (1997)

0 Prerent correlation
D Kim and Bullard (2000)
D4 Chang and Wang (1997)

I;J
OI;J

0.05

[:]

O[:l

I;J
I;J

19deg

ReLp

11~01

O,O!o .LJ

10.0

Figure 5. Heat transfer rate .vs. fan power

15deg

Fan power (W)

0.05

0.1

0.1

----

...Q

Q
0

...Q

Q
0

I;J
0

0.02

~
0

IJ
0

~Q

oo

0 .01 '--'--'--'--'-.L.....JL-L--L......L...L....L...J-L-L_.l_.l.......IL..J
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

J:l

I;J

0.02

[:]
0

Q
0

QQ
Oo

0.01 ~~-'-~-'-'--'--'--'--'-.L.....J'-L~~..L...L.....L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

ReLp

ReLp

(a) Heat exchangertype-I

(b) Heat exchanger type-II

Figure 7. Comparison of present and other correlations for j-factor

10

10
0 Present correlation
D Kim and Bullard (2000)
D4 Chang et al. (1994)

0 Prerent correlation
D Kim and Bullard (2000}
1>4 Changet al. (1994)

5
.,_0

.,_o

0.1

0.01

B
D4

~ ~ ~

lSI
D4

0.1

L-1-L...J_..L...L....l-L...J_..L.....JL...J.-L..L...L....L-l......J..-l

0.01

50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Relp

(a) Heat exchanger type-I

61
D4

61

61

lSI

61

D4

1>4

1>4

1>4

I.-L-L..J_..L.....JL...J.-L-'-.L....I--'--'-...L...-L..l.--'-....L...J

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Relp

(b) Heat exchanger type-II

Figure 8. Comparison of present and other correlations for f-factor

Eighth International Refrigeration Conference at

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA- July 25-28,2000

126